Systems, methods, and interfaces for aggregating and providing information regarding legal professionals

ABSTRACT

Systems, methods, interfaces, and software can facilitate identification of law firms and/or legal professionals. For example, an informational retrieval system may include a database comprising information regarding lawyers and a server is configured to: receive a query regarding a legal issue from at least one client access device; associate the query with a corresponding legal context; generate a list of lawyer names contained in the database; calculate at least one legal experience indicator for each of the lawyer names; and rank the lawyer names in the list according to the calculated legal experience indicator associated with each of the lawyer names and according to the corresponding legal context associated with the query.

RELATED APPLICATIONS

The present application is a continuation of U.S. patent applicationSer. No. 11/331,409, entitled SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND INTERFACES FORAGGREGATING AND PROVIDING INFORMATION REGARDING LEGAL PROFESSIONALS,filed Jan. 12, 2006, which claims priority to U.S. ProvisionalApplication No. 60/643,445 entitled SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND INTERFACES FORLINKING OF POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS TO ATTORNEYS BASED ON ATTORNEY EXPERIENCEAND/OR WEBSITE CONTEXT, and U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/643,446entitled SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND INTERFACES FOR PROVIDING DATA REGARDINGLEGAL INDUSTRY TRENDS AND CORPORATE LEGAL NEEDS, both of which werefiled on Jan. 12, 2005. The present application is also related to U.S.patent application Ser. No. 13/337,894, entitled SYSTEMS, METHODS ANDINTERFACES FOR AGGREGATING AND PROVIDING INFORMATION REGARDING LEGALPROFESSIONALS, filed Dec. 27, 2011 and issued Nov. 25, 2014 as U.S. PatNo. 8,898,174. The disclosures of the above applications areincorporated herein by reference in their entirety.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE AND PERMISSION

A portion of this patent document contains material subject to copyrightprotection. The copyright owner has no objection to the facsimilereproduction by anyone of the patent document or the patent disclosure,as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent files orrecords, but otherwise reserves all copyrights whatsoever. The followingnotice applies to this document: Copyright® 2004, Thomson Findlaw.

TECHNICAL FIELD

Various embodiments of the present invention concern informationretrieval systems, particularly those that are tailored for particularindustries, such as the legal industry.

BACKGROUND

A key aspect of the American legal system (as well as many others aroundthe world) is its reliance on professional advocates, or lawyers, tofacilitate adjudication or avoidance of legal disputes. Indeed, one ofthe constitutional rights that we as Americans cherish most dearly isthe right to counsel. Thus, when confronted with a legal issue, one ofthe first questions that prudent businesses and individuals seek toanswer is which attorney or law firm will assist them with expert legaladvice and advocacy.

In recent years, many facing this question have sought to use the powerof the Internet as a tool in identifying and/or selecting effectivecounsel for their legal needs. For example, many use general searchengines, such as www.Google.com or www.Yahoo.com, to broadly search theWorld Wide Web for lawyers based on location and particular legalexpertise. Others rely on legally focused resources, such aswww.findlaw.com which provides and maintains an extensive directory oflaw firms and legal professionals.

Although both generic and specific resources can be effective inidentifying relevant lawyers, the present inventor has recognized thereis considerable room for improvement. For example, the current resourceslack any objective information regarding the experience of lawyers inspecific legal specialties.

Accordingly, the present inventor has identified a need for better waysof searching for lawyers.

SUMMARY

To address these and/or other needs, the present inventor devisedsystems, methods, interfaces, and software that can facilitateidentification of law firms and/or legal professionals. One exemplarysystem receives queries from users regarding a legal topic and respondswith a listing of attorneys or law firms that are associated withinformation ranking them based on their experience in handling mattersrelated to the legal topic. The ranking information is based on linksbetween attorneys and public legal documents, such as judicial opinions,court dockets, briefs, litigation documents, journal articles, patents,trademarks, and so forth that mention them by name.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a block diagram of an exemplary information-retrieval systemcorresponding to one or more embodiments of the present invention.

FIG. 2 is a facsimile of an exemplary graphical user interface 200 whichcorresponds to one or more embodiments of the present invention.

FIG. 3 is a facsimile of an exemplary graphical user interface 300 whichcorresponds to one or more embodiments of the present invention.

FIG. 4 is a facsimile of an exemplary graphical user interface 400 whichcorresponds to one or more embodiments of the present invention.

FIG. 5 is a facsimile of an exemplary graphical user interface 500 whichcorresponds to one or more embodiments of the present invention.

FIG. 6 is a facsimile of an exemplary graphical user interface 600 whichalso corresponds to one or more embodiments of the present invention.

FIG. 7 is flow chart of an exemplary method corresponding to one or moreembodiments of the present invention.

FIG. 8 is a block diagram of an exemplary method corresponding to one ormore embodiments of the present invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF EXEMPLARY EMBODIMENT(S)

This description, which incorporates the Figures and the claims,describes one or more specific embodiments of an invention. Theseembodiments, offered not to limit but only to exemplify and teach theinvention, are shown and described in sufficient detail to enable thoseskilled in the art to implement or practice the invention. Thus, whereappropriate to avoid obscuring the invention, the description may omitcertain information known to those of skill in the art.

Exemplary Information-Retrieval System

FIG. 1 shows an exemplary online information-retrieval system 100, whichincorporates teachings of the present invention. System 100 includes oneor more databases 110, one or more servers 120, and one or more accessdevices 130.

Databases 110 include a set of primary databases 112 and a set of seconddatabases 114. Primary databases 112, in the exemplary embodiment,include a case law database 1121 and a statutes database 1122, whichrespectively include judicial opinions and statutes from one or morelocal, state, federal, and/or international jurisdictions. Secondarydatabases 114 provide attorney, judge, law firm, product, and corporateprofiles as well as briefs, pleadings. More specifically, one set ofdatabases includes one or more of the following types of content:federal court dockets, mergers and acquisitions information, juryverdicts and settlements. Another set includes one or more of thefollowing content types: patents, trademarks, copyrights, Security andExchange Commission (SEC) filings; federal administrative decisions, AOCfederal court statistics, NCSC state court statistics, press releases,news reports, website content, state dockets, state attorney generalopinions, state administrative decisions, corporate filing andregistration; federal and state court briefs, federal and statepleadings and motions, law reviews, bar journals, and continuing legaleducation (CLE) materials.

Each corporate profile include one or more industry classification codesor indicators as well as associations to lawyer and law firm namesderived from matching their names to those in documents containingreferences to both the corporate entity and the lawyer or law firm. Insome embodiments, the case law documents are logically associated via adata structure with documents or profiles in databases 114.Additionally, attorney or law firm profiles are associated with datastructures that provide experiential ratings for the attorneys invarious legal and/or jurisdictional categories of law.

The tallies may be made by counting the number of times a givenattorney's name or a given law firm's name appears in court documentsthat pertain to a given legal specialty, such as intellectual propertylaw, employment law, or tax. Association of documents with legalspecialties or topics is based on a legal categorization system such theKey Search System, which is featured in the Westlaw Online ResearchSystem. Other embodiments also tally journal articles identifying agiven attorney as an author. In some cases, the tally of cases orarticles or other documents can be deemphasized based on the age of thecases or articles, so that more recent experience can be weighted moreheavily than past experience in determining an experiential rating. (Insome embodiments, alternative or supplemental experiential ratings canbe determined in real-time based on user specified criteria taken aloneor in conjunction with previously generated experiential data andstatistics derived from case law and other types of documents in thedatabases.) Other embodiments may include non-legal databases thatinclude financial, scientific, or health-care information.

Databases 110, which take the exemplary form of one or more electronic,magnetic, or optical data-storage devices, include or are otherwiseassociated with respective indices (not shown). Each of the indicesincludes terms and phrases in association with corresponding documentaddresses, identifiers, and other conventional information. Databases110 are coupled or couplable via a wireless or wireline communicationsnetwork, such as a local-, wide-, private-, or virtual-private network,to server 120.

Server 120, which is generally representative of one or more servers forserving data in the form of webpages or other markup language forms withassociated applets, ActiveX controls, remote-invocation objects, orother related software and data structures to service clients of various“thicknesses.” More particularly, server 120 includes a processor module121, a memory module 122, a subscriber database 123, a data-extractionmodule 124, a search module 125, and a user-interface module 126.

Processor module 121 includes one or more local or distributedprocessors, controllers, or virtual machines. In the exemplaryembodiment, processor module 121 assumes any convenient or desirableform.

Memory module 122, which takes the exemplary form of one or moreelectronic, magnetic, or optical data-storage devices, stores subscriberdatabase 123, data-extraction module 124, search module 125, anduser-interface module 126.

Subscriber database 123 includes subscriber-related data forcontrolling, administering, and managing pay-as-you-go orsubscription-based access of databases 110. In the exemplary embodiment,subscriber database 123 includes one or more preference data structures,of which data structure 1231 is representative. Data structure 1221includes a customer or user identifier portion 1231A, which is logicallyassociated with one or more report generation or presentationpreferences, such as preferences 1231B, 1231C, and 1231D. Preference1231B includes a default value governing whether one of more of thefunctions described herein is enabled or disabled. Preference 1231Cincludes a default value governing presentation of interfaces related tothe one or more functions. Preference 1231D includes a default valuegoverning other aspects of the one or more functions. (In the absence ofa temporary user override, for example, an override, during a particularquery or session, the default value for trend reporting.)

Data-extraction module 124 includes one or more sets ofmachine-executable instructions for extracting attorney identificationdata, court and court date information, attorney plaintiff-defendantstatus information, client identification data, client industryidentification data, client plaintiff-defendant status information,attorney-to-client identification data, and law-firm identification datafrom documents in databases 110.

In some embodiments, data-extraction module 124 produces a secondaryindex or other form of data structures which logically associates orrelates documents and/or specific data contained in those documents tospecific lawyers and/or law firms. In some embodiments, data-extractionmodule 124 includes separates sets of parsers and extractors tailoredfor various types of documents in database 110. Additionally, someembodiments employ simple text matching of lawyer and law firm names inattorney and law firm profiles or in corporate profiles to documentsthat are classified according to a legal subject matter hierarchy, suchas the Key Search system, whereas others employ complex Bayesianmatching or other intelligent techniques for inferring such dataconnections.

The Key Search system provides the following top level of legalcategories: Administrative Law, Agriculture, Alternative DisputeResolution (ADR), Antitrust and Trade Regulation, Art, Entertainment,and Sports Law, Bankruptcy, Business Organizations, Civil Procedure,Civil Remedies, Civil Rights, Commercial Law and Contracts,Communications, Conflict of Laws, Constitutional Law, Construction Law,Criminal Justice, Education, Elections and Politics, Employment Law,Energy and Utilities, Environmental Law, Family Law, Finance andBanking, Government, Health Immigration Law, Indigenous Peoples,Insurance, Intellectual Property, International Law, Juvenile Justice,Legal Services, Maritime Law, Military Law, Products Liability,Professional Malpractice, Property—Personal, Property—Real, Science,Computers, and Technology, Securities Law, Taxation—Federal,Taxation—State and Local, Torts/Personal Injury, Transportation,Veterans, Wills, Trusts, and Estate Planning.

In some embodiments, data extraction module 124 includes web-basedapplications to semantically connect or link legal practitioners'customers (current or prospective) to detailed information related tothe attorney's experience, relevancy (to the legal issue at hand), andcontext (of the customer). In addition, some embodiments enableattorneys and their customers to automatically generate reporting datato determine attorneys' and/or firms' success records, law-firm trendsand history in various legal specialties, and customer (client) trendsand histories with attorneys and firms who have represented them. Also,this legal-practitioner data can form “visual relationships” ofattorneys with cases, judges, other attorneys, clients, publications,etc. The exemplary technology provides a comprehensive solution totracking information on legal practitioners in the contexts of legalrelevance and contextual relationships, reports, and visualrelationships. While some embodiments of the present invention have thiscapability (for example by suggesting legal subject matter experts orrelated published materials in response to case law or legal literaturequeries) others, potentially more significant, provide data based ondocumented relationships that have been experienced between attorneys,firms, judges, and clients to produce legitimate related references.

Search module 125 includes one or more search engines for receiving andprocessing user queries against one or more of databases 110. In theexemplary embodiment, one or more search engines associated with searchmodule 124 enable users to search for attorneys or law firms withdemonstrated experience in a given legal issue and/or given court/judge.Attorneys and law firms are sorted by relevance, with the mostexperienced in a given legal issue and/or court displayed first based onexperiential ranking information. This module (in cooperation withothers) also enables users to find legal representation throughcontextual relationships on related web pages. For example, if a user isviewing a page with content related to intellectual property, the systemrecommends attorneys who are local (and potentially national) experts inintellectual property. Some embodiments are sensitive to whether thelegal context is a local, state, or federal issue, limiting or evenexpanding recommendations accordingly. For example, patent law isgenerally a federal issue, so that attorney or firm locality may oftenbe of lesser significance. Results can be expanded and orderedaccordingly.

User-interface module 126 includes machine readable and/or executableinstruction sets for wholly or partly defining web-based userinterfaces, such as search interface 1261 and results interface 1262,over a wireless or wireline communications network on one or moreaccesses devices, such as access device 130.

Access device 130 is generally representative of one or more accessdevices. In the exemplary embodiment, access device 130 takes the formof a personal computer, workstation, personal digital assistant, mobiletelephone, or any other device capable of providing an effective userinterface with a server or database. Specifically, access device 130includes a processor module 131 one or more processors (or processingcircuits) 131, a memory 132, a display 133, a keyboard 134, and agraphical pointer or selector 135.

Processor module 131 includes one or more processors, processingcircuits, or controllers. In the exemplary embodiment, processor module131 takes any convenient or desirable form. Coupled to processor module131 is memory 132.

Memory 132 stores code (machine-readable or executable instructions) foran operating system 136, a browser 137, and a graphical user interface(GUI) 138. In the exemplary embodiment, operating system 136 takes theform of a version of the Microsoft Windows operating system, and browser137 takes the form of a version of Microsoft Internet Explorer.(However, some embodiments use other operating systems and browsers.)Operating system 136 and browser 137 not only receive inputs fromkeyboard 134 and selector 135, but also support rendering of GUI 138 ondisplay 133. Upon rendering, GUI 138 presents data in association withone or more interactive control features (or user-interface elements).(The exemplary embodiment defines one or more portions of interface 138using applets or other programmatic objects or structures from server120 to implement the interfaces shown above or elsewhere in thisdescription.)

More specifically, GUI 138 includes a query region 1381 and a resultsregion 1382. Query region 1381 includes an input feature 1381A and asubmit feature 1381B. Input feature provides one or more input regions,such as a lawyer-law-firm selection feature, a geographic (orjurisdictional) selection feature, and a legal subject matter feature.

In the exemplary embodiment, each of these control features takes theform of a hyperlink or other browser-compatible command input, andprovides access to and control of query region 1381 and search-resultsregion 1382. User selection of the control features in region 1382results in retrieval and display of at least a portion of thecorresponding document within a region of interface 138 (not shown inthis figure.) Although FIG. 1 shows region 1381 and 1382 as beingsimultaneously displayed, some embodiments present them at separatetimes.

FIGS. 2-6 respectively show other exemplary interfaces 200, 300, 400,500, and 600 that have one or more portions that may be used in place ofone or more portions of GUI 138. In FIG. 2, interface 200 displays anattorney query for experts in a legal field of prior art who have triedcases under Margaret Kravchuk in Maine's First Circuit U.S. DistrictCourt. Interface 300 displays the resulting list of attorneys from thequery according to their relevant litigation experience and authorship.In FIG. 4, interface 400 displays a query on intellectual-property lawto be searched by law firm. In FIG. 5, interface 500 displays a list ofrelated attorney profiles within the context of a featured article. Theattorney links listed on the right portion of the screen identifyattorneys with legal expertise in the field that is featured in thearticle. The links, in some embodiments, are listed in rank order ofexperience, with the most experienced lawyer listed first.

In FIG. 6, interface 600 displays a visual relationship network for agiven attorney, which in some embodiments may be a referral target orprospective lateral hire. The visual relationship network allows legalpractitioners to facilitate referrals and to build an online “community”that provides associations with a variety of networks. Previousrelationship-network applications only contain aggregate attorneyattributes that form a limited universe of attorney information. Someembodiments use this figure as a template for a networking interface, inwhich a user selectively activates each cluster or family of nodes toinitiate display of screens that show details, such as contact andprofile information, including professional experience and third-partyratings, of people identified within the cluster. The judge networkincludes attorney appearances associated with judges, courts, legalmatters, etc. The local peer network displays other attorneys who haveappeared in front of the same judge, in the same courts, or on the samelegal matters. Additional sub-networks provide information related totheir titles.

Thus, various embodiments provide users the capability to search forexpertise on specific legal matters, in specific courts, before specificjudges. In addition, this feature allows firms to make hiring decisionsby providing a view of an attorney's litigation record that is drawnfrom court decisions in a proprietary online legal research service.Profiles also display a full view of a legal practitioner's litigationexperience to assist in these hiring decisions. This history can also beuseful in assessing potential conflicts of interest for given attorneys.

Exemplary Methods of Operating an Information-Retrieval System

FIG. 7 shows a flow chart 700 of an exemplary method of operating aninformation retrieval system, such as system 100 in FIG. 1. Flow chart700 includes blocks 710-740, which are arranged and described serially.However, other embodiments execute two or more blocks in parallel usingmultiple processors or processor-like devices or a single processororganized as two or more virtual machines or sub processors. Otherembodiments also alter the process sequence or provide differentfunctional partitions or blocks to achieve analogous results. Moreover,still other embodiments implement the blocks as two or moreinterconnected hardware modules with related control and data signalscommunicated between and through the modules. Thus, the exemplaryprocess flow applies to software, hardware, and firmwareimplementations.

At block 710, the exemplary method begins with provision of amultilingual document collection—that is a collection comprising two ormore documents written in two or more languages. In the exemplaryembodiment, the document collection takes the form of one or moredatabases, such as database 110 in FIG. 1. Execution continues at block720.

Block 720 entails defining or extracting relationships between documentsin the databases. In the exemplary embodiment, this entails usingdata-extraction module 124 in system 100 to extract entity names fromthe documents and using various techniques to identify or inferrelationships between the extracted names. After the one or more indicesare defined, processing continues at block 730.

Block 730 entails receiving a query from a user. In the exemplaryembodiment, this entails a user directing a browser in a client accessdevice, such as device 130 in FIG. 1, to an internet-protocol (IP)address for an online information-retrieval system, such as system 100,and then logging onto the system using appropriate credentials.Successful login results in a web-based search interface, such asinterface 138 in FIG. 1 (or one or more portions thereof) being outputfrom server 120, stored in memory 132, and displayed by client accessdevice 130. The user then defines the query by interacting with theinterface, specifically entering data into one or more query fields orselecting from various drop-down menus. feature to transmit the query toa server, such as server 120 for processing. Execution then advances toblock 740 (as shown in FIG. 7.)

Block 740 entails presenting a graphical user interface listing theidentified set of documents in groups based on corresponding languageand/or in rank order of relevance. In the exemplary embodiment, thisentails displaying a listing of the identified set of items, such asattorneys or documents and attorneys on interface 138, 200, 300, 400, or500. In some embodiments, selection of a link associated with a listedattorney causes retrieval of a profile for the attorney, with theprofile including a link to cause display of an interface, such asinterface 600, which shows various networks that the respective attorneybelongs to. In some variations of these embodiments, an additionalcharge is levied against the subscriber upon accessing interface 600 andthe value-added information it provides.

FIG. 8 shows a high-level flow diagram that may be employed at block 720or within data extraction module 124. The diagram includes workflow andsupporting components. Data sources (in the first column) from variousproprietary repositories contain a variety of content types. In thisdiagram, the content types include articles, law reviews, mergers andacquisitions (M&A), and political contributions. The data-extractioncolumn displays the programs that extract data from the contentaccording to the functions/products the data will support. For example,the law-trend and client-trend report applications require data to beextracted by identifying the company, attorney-to-client relationship,and law-firm. In addition, auto-mining and “job change event” extractionmay be used. Auto-mining is essentially the process by which an attorneyis added to the content repository if he or she is not identified by theextraction program. “Job change event” extraction monitors pressreleases for updates to an attorney's position within his or herexisting firm or another firm. Once the data is extracted by the miningprograms according to function, it is placed in a “relationshipauthority,” or relational data structure, such as an index or added asmeta data to attorney and corporate profiles. An inference engine(RMS++, not shown) then processes data from the relationship algorithminto final products. This engine is built with a series of algorithms(rules) that infer the relationships of attorneys, employmentinformation, corporate legal data, etc. For example, if Attorney A hasappeared before Judge A during the same case as Attorney B, theinference rules within the engine would determine that Attorneys A and Bwere involved in the same case.

CONCLUSION

The embodiments described above and in the claims are intended only toillustrate and teach one or more ways of practicing or implementing thepresent invention, not to restrict its breadth or scope. The actualscope of the invention, which embraces all ways of practicing orimplementing the teachings of the invention, is defined only by theissued claims and their equivalents.

The invention claimed is:
 1. An information retrieval system comprising:a database comprising information regarding a plurality of lawyers; anda server, implemented at least partially by hardware, including at leastone processor and memory, the server configured to: determine a legalissue associated with content currently being presented to a user on atleast one client access device, wherein the content currently beingpresented is not created by the user; determine a legal contextcorresponding to the legal issue, wherein the determined legal contextis not defined by the user and specifies whether the legal issue is oneof a local issue, a state issue, and a federal issue, wherein ajurisdictional scope of the local issue is narrower than ajurisdictional scope of the state issue; generate a list of two or morelawyer names contained in the database corresponding to the legal issue;calculate at least one legal experience indicator for each of the two ormore lawyer names, the at least one legal experience indicator based atleast in part on the determined legal context; and rank the two or morelawyer names in the list according to the calculated at least one legalexperience indicator associated with each of the two or more lawyernames and according to the determined legal context associated with thecurrently presented content.
 2. The information retrieval system ofclaim 1, wherein the at least one legal experience indicator is furthercalculated based at least in part on a count of a number of electronicfiles in the database that include a name of a respective lawyer, a dateassociated with each of the number of electronic files that includes thename of the respective lawyer, and a level of experience of therespective lawyer with at least one of a given court and a given judge,wherein the server is further configured to automatically count thenumber of electronic files in the database that include the name of therespective lawyer and to determine the date associated with eachelectronic file.
 3. The information retrieval system of claim 2, whereinthe count of the number of electronic files is deemphasized based on anage associated with each of the electronic files so that recentexperience is weighted more heavily than past experience.
 4. Theinformation retrieval system of claim 1, wherein the rank is furtherbased on a jurisdictional or geographic factor associated with thecurrently presented content.
 5. An information retrieval systemcomprising: at least one processor and memory implemented at leastpartially by hardware; a first set of data sources including one or moreof a case law database and a statutes database; a second set of the datasources including attorney profiles and one or more of courtproceedings, government documents, news reports, corporate documents,and legal publications; wherein the at least one processor and memory isconfigured by the information retrieval system for: extracting attorneyinformation from the first set of the data sources and the second set ofthe data sources, wherein the extracted attorney information correspondsto a legal issue associated with content currently being presented to auser, wherein the content currently being presented is not created bythe user; calculating a legal experience indicator for a specificattorney based at least in part on a count of a number of electronicfiles in the first set of the data sources and the second set of thedata sources that include the specific attorney; and associating thelegal experience indicator with a legal context, not defined by theuser, specifying whether the legal issue is one of a local issue, astate issue, and a federal issue, wherein a jurisdictional scope of thelocal issue is narrower than a jurisdictional scope of the state issue,and the count of the number of electronic files is deemphasized based onan age associated with each of the electronic files so that recentexperience is weighted more heavily than past experience.
 6. Theinformation retrieval system of claim 5, wherein the legal experienceindicator is further calculated based at least in part on a dateassociated with each of the electronic files that includes the specificattorney, and a level of experience of the specific attorney with atleast one of a given court and a given judge.
 7. The informationretrieval system of claim 5, wherein the second set of the data sourcesincludes at least one of the following types of content: federal courtdockets, mergers and acquisition documents, jury verdicts andsettlements, court proceeding documents, patents, trademarkregistrations, copyright registrations, U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission filings, federal administrative decisions, federal courtstatistics, state court statistics, press releases, web site content,state dockets, state attorney general opinions, state administrativedecisions, corporate filings and registrations, federal and state courtbriefs, federal and state pleadings and motions, law review articles,bar journals, and continuing legal education information.
 8. A method ofretrieving information comprising: determining, by a server implementedat least partially by hardware including at least one processor andmemory, a legal issue associated with content currently being presentedto a user on at least one client access device, wherein the contentcurrently being presented is not created by the user; determining alegal context corresponding to the legal issue, wherein the determinedlegal context is not defined by the user and specifies whether the legalissue is one of a local issue, a state issue, and a federal issue,wherein a jurisdictional scope of the local issue is narrower than ajurisdictional scope of the state issue; generating a list of two ormore lawyer names contained in a database corresponding to the legalissue, the database comprising information regarding a plurality oflawyers; calculating at least one legal experience indicator for each ofthe two or more lawyer names, the at least one legal experienceindicator based at least in part on the determined legal context; andranking the two or more lawyer names in the list according to thecalculated at least one legal experience indicator associated with eachof the two or more lawyer names and according to the determined legalcontext associated with the currently presented content.
 9. The methodof claim 8, wherein the at least one legal experience indicator isfurther calculated based at least in part on a count of a number ofelectronic files in the database that include a name of a respectivelawyer, a date associated with each of the number of electronic filesthat includes the name of the respective lawyer, and a level ofexperience of the respective lawyer with at least one of a given courtand a given judge, wherein the method further comprises: automaticallycounting the number of electronic files in the database that include thename of the respective lawyer; and determining the date associated witheach electronic file.
 10. The method of claim 9, wherein the count ofthe number of electronic files is deemphasized based on an ageassociated with each of the electronic files so that recent experienceis weighted more heavily than past experience.
 11. The method of claim8, wherein the rank is further based on a jurisdictional or geographicfactor associated with the currently presented content.